Arthur Sinodinos makes major call on the future AUKUS deal under the Trump Administration
The Pentagon confirmed to 7NEWS last week that the more than $300 billion deal, which involves the sale of three Virginia Class SSNs (nuclear-powered submarines) to Australia, was under review.
Sinodinos, who appeared on Sunrise on Monday, was asked about the future of the deal.
'I believe it will (survive the review),' he told Nat Barr.
'There is a lot of bipartisan for the deal from day one in the Congress, both Republican and Democrat.
'Trump himself, I think, would see that we are pulling weight.
Australia has already made a $500 million down payment to the United States for the first Virginia class vessels.
'We are going to spend, what $370 billion on AUKUS, pillar one and pillar two,' Sinodinos said.
'We are putting money into the US, $500 million already, we are putting money into the UK industrial base. We are doing what he expects allies to do.
'Now, there is a separate debate about whether spending overall on defence should go up.
'But I think it is right to say, let's work out what we need in concert with the Americans, before deciding on a figure.'
Trump would need to certify the sale of the submarines won't impact the US industrial base.
'What is happening in the US is the navy is putting more money into the industrial base to accelerate the rate of submarine construction, so we can meet that timeline,' Sinodinos said.
According to Sinodinos, it will also 'have a deterrent effect on China.
'So, if we look at any stage like we are second guessing ourselves, or we are not committed to really doing this, we are not serious, the Chinese will say, 'look, at end of the day, they are all paper tiger, we don't have to worry'.
'We can just keep pushing ... in the Indo-Pacific and these characters will not push back.'
AUKUS under review
A US Department of Defense official says AUKUS is being reviewed 'as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous Administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda'.
'As Secretary Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our servicemembers, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs,' the official said.
'This review will ensure the initiative meets this common sense, America First criteria.'
The Albanese government has sought to reduce fears about the future of AUKUS.
Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles says the government is 'committed to AUKUS and we look forward to working closely with the US on the review'.
'The United States advised Australia and the UK of the review,' Marles said.
'It is natural that the administration would want to examine this major undertaking including progress and delivery, just as the UK government recently concluded an AUKUS review and reaffirmed its support.
'All three countries are committed to ensuring AUKUS meets national and trilateral objectives.
'Importantly, AUKUS will grow both US and Australian defence industry as well as generating thousands of new manufacturing jobs.
'There is bipartisan support in the United States with the passage of important provisions in the National Defence Authorisation Act in 2023 to enable the transfer of US Virginia class submarines to Australia, and to enable Australians to work on maintenance activities of US Virginia class submarines.'
'Our engagement with the Trump Administration and across the full political spectrum in the United States has shown clear and consistent support for AUKUS.'
What is AUKUS?
Under the plan signed between former prime minister Scott Morrison and former United States president Joe Biden, the White House intends to sell Australia three Virginia Class SSNs (nuclear-powered submarines) from as soon as the early 2030s, which was authorised by the US Congress in December 2023.
Australia retains the option to seek approval for up to two more if needed.
Australia's Submarine Agency says, 'This acquisition will eliminate any capability gap and increase the three nations' (Australia, UK and US) ability to deter aggression and contribute to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.'
Australia will then build its own nuclear-powered submarines based off technology from the UK.
Australia's nuclear-powered submarines — SSN-AUKUS — will be based on the UK's next-generation design that incorporates technology from all three nations, including cutting edge US submarine technologies.
The UK will commence construction of its first SSN-AUKUS in Barrow-in-Furness UK, as early as the late 2020s. The UK intends to deliver its first SSN-AUKUS to the UK Royal Navy in the late 2030s.
Australia will begin building its first SSN-AUKUS in Adelaide, South Australia, by the end of this decade, and plans to deliver the first Australian-built SSN-AUKUS to the Royal Australian Navy in the early 2040s.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Social media ban Australia: How new laws will work and how they could fail
Seven months later, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant challenged that description, sharing research with Wells in late June that said four in 10 young teenagers had been exposed to harmful content, such as eating-disorder videos, on YouTube. Loading That triggered an intense lobbying campaign by YouTube. The website's owner, Google, sent Wells a legal letter flagging it would consider High Court action, arguing the ban violated the implied constitutional right of freedom of political communication. There is a lot at stake for the company. Google reported $8.4 billion in gross revenue from Australia in 2022, the last year it made that figure available, giving it the motivation and resources to fight efforts to restrict access from new, young users to one of the company's key online services. Then Australian children's music royalty got involved. The Wiggles' chief executive Kate Chiodo visited Wells and attempted to appeal to her as a mother of three young children by arguing YouTube's inclusion in the ban would restrict access to kids' shows. Wells was not persuaded. 'I said to them, 'you're arguing that my four-year-old twins' right to a YouTube login is more important than the fact that four out of 10 of their peers will experience online harm on YouTube',' Wells said on Wednesday. Responding to this masthead's request for comment, the Wiggles linked to a Facebook post from Wells – made three years ago – showing a photo of her twin sons and captioned that she handled the parliament by having baby gates and 'The Wiggles on YouTube'. 'Video platforms like YouTube, when used to watch trusted children's programs, function differently to social media,' a Wiggles spokesperson said. 'Millions of Australian parents (including Minister Wells) and their children watch the Wiggles on YouTube much like they would on smart TVs, not as part of a social media feed.' YouTube said in a statement it was considering its legal options, and on Thursday Google cancelled a parliamentary concert (that Wells was intending to attend as communications minister) featuring rock band the Rubens. The company said it was out of respect for the grieving parents at Wednesday's press conference. Evans' anger at YouTube has never abated. Liv was 15 when she died by taking her own life after her battle with anorexia. A lover of cheerleading, animals, art and nature, her early childhood was full of fun and learning. Evans said he noticed a change in Liv when she was 13 and began using Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube. The browsing on YouTube began with cat videos, then cooking, to healthier recipes, then fitness tips, before it took a darker turn towards how to remain thin. 'She may not be recovered, but I think she would still be here if it weren't for YouTube,' Robb said. YouTube has argued there is substantial evidence that it is used regularly for educational purposes, citing a 2024 survey that found 84 per cent of teachers use the platform for lessons. Loading YouTube Australia and New Zealand public policy manager Rachel Lord said the survey revealed 85 per cent of children and 68 per cent of parents said the platform was appropriate for under 15s, in contrast to other social media companies. 'YouTube is not a social media platform; it is a video-sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, and TV screens are increasingly the most popular place to watch,' Lord said in June, following the eSafety commissioner's advice. But there is deep disagreement about how effective a social media ban will be in protecting young people. The government has handed responsibility for enforcement to tech platforms, with big fines if they do not comply. But anyone, including young children, will still be able to access services that do not require a login. This masthead conducted an experiment using both YouTube and TikTok without an account, scrolling through videos via a desktop with private browsing to avoid the companies relying on previous search history. YouTube delivered videos designed to trigger engagement that were a far cry from educational, but did not raise obvious red flags. On TikTok, however, in the first three minutes of scrolling, sexualised content, misogynistic messaging and videos themed around death appeared. None were explicitly pornographic or violent, and this masthead does not suggest the experiment was scientific or would be the same for every user. But the process indicates how internet platforms retain an incentive to show users troubling content to attract their attention even without a login. Platforms typically serve more videos to a user depending on the preferences they indicate. 'It is difficult to comment on your experiment without knowing the conditions or controls in place when it was conducted,' a TikTok spokeswoman said. 'Everything on TikTok is bound by our strict community guidelines regardless of whether someone is logged in or not. We proactively remove content that breaches those guidelines and, in fact, removed more than 926,000 videos in Australia in [the first quarter of] 2025 alone.' University of Sydney law professor Anne Twomey said the government's claim to parents that it had their back in protecting kids from social media was 'rubbish' because the ban has numerous carve-outs and exceptions, including for gaming and messaging. 'It is very unlikely all the children will be outside playing footy in the garden. It exempts, for example, online gaming, so if Jonny is shut away in his bedroom doing online gaming, he will keep doing that,' she said. 'There is nothing here that gets kids off their computers into the garden. 'Bullying will still happen by using messaging apps, it's not going to stop kids having their sleep disrupted, it doesn't do any of that.' Loading The legislation also does not explain to tech companies what constitutes 'reasonable steps' to prevent under 16s from accessing social media, Twomey said. 'That's a problem for the platforms to deal with because they are entering into the area of the unknown, which is unusual with laws,' she said. Facial estimation technology and ID verification are some of the ways being proposed to ensure children cannot access social media. Twomey said the government risks a backlash because the policy was sold to the Australian public as a way to take kids away from technology. 'You can still watch as many videos on as many harmful issues as you like,' she said. 'What the law means is you can't comment, can't like or dislike or upload your videos.' Macquarie University psychologist Danielle Einstein disagrees, arguing it will be like banning alcohol for children under 18, creating a cultural understanding that social media at a young age has potentially life-altering affects. 'At the basis of it all, it's their understanding of the risks and what their view of alcohol is, and that's what we need to do with social media, is we need to change everyone's view of social media.' Einstein – whose research played a role in driving the campaign from advocacy group 36 Months that the parents who stood with Albanese are linked to – said the new laws have already changed people's views on how technology should be a part of children's lives and the next step should be presenting a public health campaign to young people.
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Green hydrogen hype fades but future hopes are bright
Investors call it "the valley of death": the decade-long stretch in which a budding technology struggles to become profitable. For green hydrogen, the valley is looming large after two energy giants withdrew support for multibillion-dollar Australian projects within one month. Following the announcements, a $14 billion plant will no longer be built in Gladstone, Queensland and a $55 billion proposal for Western Australia's Pilbara region is in doubt. But while the global green hydrogen hype is starting to deflate, climate, energy and finance experts say there are still plenty of reasons to pursue production of the zero-emission fuel in Australia. The investment pause may also give the industry time to reconsider uses for carbon-free hydrogen, they say, letting firms ditch the dream of a hydrogen car market and energy exports in favour of more promising pursuits such as green iron. Green hydrogen, named for its zero-emission properties, has been pursued strongly in Australia since the release of the National Hydrogen Strategy in 2019. The fuel is created using an electrolyser, powered by renewable energy, that splits water into hydrogen and oxygen. It has been called the "Swiss Army knife of decarbonisation" due to its potential to cut emissions in fields such as transport, metal production, fertilisers and electricity. But producing, transporting and selling green hydrogen is not proving as quick or as profitable as some pundits anticipated. In addition to the two recent green hydrogen project withdrawals, Climate Energy Finance director Tim Buckley says many plans have been redrawn and erased around the world. "Australia is not alone - this is a global trend and we have seen the global hydrogen hype dissipate dramatically," he says. "We've had a series of hydrogen proposals shut down, cancelled or withdrawn over the last six to 12 months." Even strong proponents of green hydrogen, such as Germany, have reduced support for the zero-emission fuel, he says, as it has proven expensive to produce without access to large-scale, cheap, renewable energy and an international carbon price. Green hydrogen is also proving challenging to transport, defying predictions it could be shipped internationally to decarbonise energy production in neighbouring countries. Investing in green hydrogen is like investing in internet companies during the 1990s, Mr Buckley says: risky even though it could pay off in 10 years. "We're going now across the valley of death and it's usually a decade-long journey before you come out the other side and realise there was a lot of substance in what was being said. "We were just deluded and over-hyped about how quickly it would happen," he says. Australia has several small green hydrogen plants in operation and the federal government has issued two grants to larger facilities through its Hydrogen Headstart program. The Murchison Green Hydrogen Project in Western Australia received an $814 million grant in March, followed by a $432 million grant for Orica's Hunter Valley Hydrogen Hub this month. Despite withdrawing from its proposed hydrogen plant in Gladstone and another in the US, Fortescue chief executive Dino Otranto says the energy giant remains optimistic about the future of the fuel. Producing large amounts of green hydrogen for export "presents real challenges," he says, but Fortescue will use the fuel to produce green metals at its Pilbara plant. "Our belief in the long-term role of green hydrogen hasn't changed but we acknowledge the market for green hydrogen as an export energy has shifted," he tells AAP. "In the near term, our focus is on where hydrogen has a clear and immediate role - producing green iron." Green iron has the potential to cut 90 per cent of emissions produced in the steelmaking process by using hydrogen and energy from renewable sources rather than coal or gas. Australia could become a leading supplier of green iron as the world's biggest iron ore exporter, according to analysis from The Superpower Institute, and could generate as much as $386 billion a year from the metal by 2060. Changing the focus on green hydrogen from an export material to fuel for domestic use is vital, says Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis global steel lead analyst Simon Nicholas, and could secure its future. "The silver lining to a lot of these projects failing, I hope, is that there's going to be a refocusing on what we need to use green hydrogen for and we'll end up needing an awful lot less than we thought we did a few years ago," he says. "It should be used domestically in the place that it's produced and it should be focused on a much narrower range of uses." Hydrogen-powered cars have been outpaced by electric models, he says, and using the fuel to power long-haul trucks or heat homes seems unlikely. Using green hydrogen to produce cleaner iron and steel, ammonia, fertiliser, explosives and other chemicals could give it a greater chance of success, however, and give Australia more export opportunities. "It's going to be very important because competition overseas is there and growing," Mr Nicholas says.
Perth Now
2 hours ago
- Perth Now
Ex-Trump prosecutor Jack Smith under investigation
US officials have opened an investigation into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who investigated then-candidate Donald Trump before his re-election, for alleged illegal political activity. The Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency, on Saturday confirmed the investigation after reporting by other news organisations. Smith was named special counsel to investigate Trump by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022. Trump and his Republican allies, including Senator Tom Cotton, have — without offering evidence of wrongdoing— accused Smith of violating the Hatch Act, a federal law that bans certain public officials from engaging in political activity. Smith prosecuted two federal cases against Republican candidate Trump in the lead-up to the November 2024 presidential election. Smith ultimately dropped the cases — neither one had gone to trial — after Trump was re-elected, which would have shielded him from prosecution according to longstanding Justice Department practice. Smith then subsequently resigned as special counsel. Cotton, on Wednesday asked the Office of Special Counsel to investigate Smith, alleging that his conduct was designed to help then-President Joe Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris, both Democrats. Biden had dropped his own bid for re-election following his disastrous performance in a campaign debate against Trump and tapped Harris to succeed him on the ticket. Trump won the election. The White House had no immediate comment on the investigation. The New York Post was first to report on the investigation into Smith.
